Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

blackbush2000 · 21-08-2009 05:05PM

I can just fully agree with your post and I am pro Europe and feel as a part of this Community as well but politicans of all colours try to sell us this Treaty now for the second time in an even more surprise Christmas wrapping paper to convince the stupid public. The Cowen-Government uses the economic crises in Ireland, which is homemade and has nothing to little in common with the rest of the world as the almighty excuse to cover the "criminal failures" they have made. Just lets vote again, and again till the EU gets the "YES Vote" they want. But why even asking the public of Ireland again, where people do not understand politics anyway???
The 2nd October 2009 will be a sad day in History for all of us with all them YES Votes bought from EU Money! Europe will sail straight away into a Dictatorship lead by the big 3 (France, Germany, England) and the rest will no longer have anything to say!
Ireland may have defeted the English Empire after 800 years but this Treaty will be worse than English Rule!!!

Regards

marco_polo · 21-08-2009 05:10PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

And as i described in my earlier post the EU can legislate in any area where there is a shared competence with unlimited scope. This is indisputable.

Could not be much clearer where it can and cannot legislate actually:

1. In the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market and with regard for the need to preserve and improve the environment, Union policy on energy shall aim, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, to:

(a) ensure the functioning of the energy market;

(b) ensure security of energy supply in the Union; and

(c) promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy; and

(d) promote the interconnection of energy networks.

2. Without prejudice to the application of other provisions of the Treaties, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish the measures necessary to achieve the objectives in paragraph 1. Such measures shall be adopted after consultation of the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

Such measures shall not affect a Member State’s right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply, without prejudice to Article 175(2)(c) [192(2)(c)].

3. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall unanimously and after consulting the European Parliament, establish the measures referred to therein when they are primarily of a fiscal nature.

Scofflaw · 21-08-2009 05:12PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

That explanation cannot be true because the word principal does not appear when defining exclusive or supporting competences in Article 3 and 6.

And we can see that Article 4 (see below) says all powers mentioned in the treaties that are not listed in Articles 3 and 6 are shared. Therefore 'shared competence' is open-ended and the list you provided is only indicative, i.e. examples. That is why the word principle only appears against the list of shared competences.

And as i described in my earlier post the EU can legislate in any area where there is a shared competence with unlimited scope. This is indisputable.

As usual, it's far from 'indisputable'. Are you arguing:

(a) that there are powers provided for in the Treaties in areas which are not described by the list of shared competences? If you are, please feel free to list them for my better education (I mean that genuinely).

(b) that the EU's competence over energy goes beyond what is stated in the Treaties, and that therefore the heading 'energy' is not simply a very broad 'principal area', but a claim over the entire area of energy, despite the specific restrictions actually stated?

And, finally, what causes you to simply ignore the very plain statement that competences not conferred on the EU remain with the member states?

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo · 21-08-2009 05:15PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

The long-term consequence is that the EU will gradually take over law-making in all areas of so-called shared competence.

You evidently have a view of the EU as some sort of evil conspiracy bent on wresting power from its member states by various cunning and underhanded means. I'm unclear where this perspective comes from.

Can you give an example of a policy imposed on the member states by the EU, which those member states are deeply unhappy about?

Oh yeah, and how's the art auction business doing in the UK since 2001?

jimmy jam jars · 21-08-2009 05:17PM

will vote yes, need to keep eu neighbours sweet, crisis in Irish history just now:eek:

Freeborn John · 21-08-2009 05:17PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

You evidently have a view of the EU as some sort of evil conspiracy bent on wresting power from its member states by various cunning and underhanded means. I'm unclear where this perspective comes from.

Remind me why there is a 2nd referendum on this treaty again please.

marco_polo · 21-08-2009 05:19PM

blackbush2000 wrote: »

I can just fully agree with your post and I am pro Europe and feel as a part of this Community as well but politicans of all colours try to sell us this Treaty now for the second time in an even more surprise Christmas wrapping paper to convince the stupid public. The Cowen-Government uses the economic crises in Ireland, which is homemade and has nothing to little in common with the rest of the world as the almighty excuse to cover the "criminal failures" they have made. Just lets vote again, and again till the EU gets the "YES Vote" they want. But why even asking the public of Ireland again, where people do not understand politics anyway???
The 2nd October 2009 will be a sad day in History for all of us with all them YES Votes bought from EU Money! Europe will sail straight away into a Dictatorship lead by the big 3 (France, Germany, England) and the rest will no longer have anything to say!
Ireland may have defeted the English Empire after 800 years but this Treaty will be worse than English Rule!!!

Regards

The image of France, Germany, England skipping along together hand in hand in perferct harmony is VERY amusing, if a little detached from reality

marco_polo · 21-08-2009 05:20PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

Remind me why there is a 2nd referendum on this treaty again please.

Still claiming this?: "The EU can legislate in any area where there is a shared competence with unlimited scope"

EDIT: In fact even better, can you point out a piece of current EU legislation that is in a competence area that was not explicitly defined in a prior treaty?

oscarBravo · 21-08-2009 05:33PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

Remind me why there is a 2nd referendum on this treaty again please.

Because the government still wants to ratify it.

Remind me why you never, ever, ever answer inconvenient questions, please.

Oh, and read the section in the forum charter about "soapboxing", because as far as I can see that's all you've done since you got here.

Freeborn John · 21-08-2009 05:47PM

marco_polo wrote: »

Still claiming this?: "The EU can legislate in any area where there is a shared competence with unlimited scope"

Yes. It is absolutely the case as per the definition of shared competence in the Lisbon Treaty (see below). No other reading of the treaty is possible.

Article 2.2: When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with the Member States in a specific area, the Union and the member States may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area. The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence.

And the EU will have a right in most of those areas to legislate by qualified majority voting. Therefore, these provisions open up almost any area in which the EU might want to legislate as being accessible to it through an extension of these so-called shared competences. In other words, on October 2, you would be voting to give the EU the first right to legislate in all these areas after which our national government is only allowed scope to legislate in areas where the EU has not legislated.

If these were only a few tight areas related to the working of the Common Market or trade policy, that might be reasonable, but when the headings are as broad as they are, covering just about every conceivable area of domestic policy; economic, social, political, environmental, justice and home affairs, etc. the only conclusion that can be reached is that we would be giving the EU carte blanche powers to legislate in all those areas.

marco_polo · 21-08-2009 06:00PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

Yes. It is absolutely the case as per the definition of shared competence in the Lisbon Treaty (see below). No other reading of the treaty is possible.

And the EU will have a right in most of those areas to legislate by qualified majority voting. Therefore, these provisions open up almost any area in which the EU might want to legislate as being accessible to it through an extension of these so-called shared competences. In other words, on October 2, you would be voting to give the EU the first right to legislate in all these areas after which our national government is only allowed scope to legislate in areas where the EU has not legislated.

If these were only a few tight areas related to the working of the Common Market or trade policy, that might be reasonable, but when the headings are as broad as they are, covering just about every conceivable area of domestic policy; economic, social, political, environmental, justice and home affairs, etc. the only conclusion that can be reached is that we would be giving the EU carte blanche powers to legislate in all those areas.

Like playing table tennis with a brick wall. As with energy outlined above, the scope of all competances granted to the EU are very clearly defined. :rolleyes:

Can you point out a piece of current EU legislation that is in a area that was not explicitly defined in a prior treaty?

Scofflaw · 21-08-2009 06:05PM

marco_polo wrote: »

Like playing table tennis with a brick wall. As with energy outlined above, the scope of all competances granted to the EU are very clearly defined. :rolleyes:

Can you point out a piece of current EU legislation that is in a area that was not explicitly defined in a prior treaty?

You'd have to wonder whether his eyes simply skip over certain words:

Article 2.2: When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with the Member States in a specific area, the Union and the member States may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area. The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence.

amused,
Scofflaw

Freeborn John · 21-08-2009 08:07PM

marco_polo wrote: »

Still claiming this?: "The EU can legislate in any area where there is a shared competence with unlimited scope"

EDIT: In fact even better, can you point out a piece of current EU legislation that is in a competence area that was not explicitly defined in a prior treaty?

Shared competences exist in the current treaties, but there is no list of those competences (even an illustrative one, like in Lisbon).

The typical approach when the treaties do not confer the power, is for the EU to invoke Article 308 EC (flexibility clause). This should only be used for common market rules as per the current treaty, but would be widened by Lisbon. Never-the-less it seems normal practice already to use it for things that have nothing to do with the common market, e.g. freezing terrorist assets (see below).

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:344:0070:0075:EN:PDF

Pretty much wherever you see reference to Article 308 in an EU regulation it means they just made the power up in an EU Council meeting. This happens about 30 times a year.

hatrickpatrick · 21-08-2009 08:50PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Can you give an example of a policy imposed on the member states by the EU, which those member states are deeply unhappy about?

I can think of one straight away off the top of my head:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7985339.stm

Email records.
I don't particularly want any of this information stored. And if it is, it should be because the Irish people alone decide that this is best for Ireland. I still wouldn't approve of it but at least it would have democratic legitimacy.

K-9 · 21-08-2009 08:56PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

Shared competences exist in the current treaties, but there is no list of those competences (even an illustrative one, like in Lisbon).

The typical approach when the treaties do not confer the power, is for the EU to invoke Article 308 EC (flexibility clause). This should only be used for common market rules as per the current treaty, but would be widened by Lisbon. Never-the-less it seems normal practice already to use it for things that have nothing to do with the common market, e.g. freezing terrorist assets (see below).

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:344:0070:0075:EN:PDF

Pretty much wherever you see reference to Article 308 in an EU regulation it means they just made the power up in an EU Council meeting. This happens about 30 times a year.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I can think of one straight away off the top of my head:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7985339.stm

Email records.
I don't particularly want any of this information stored. And if it is, it should be because the Irish people alone decide that this is best for Ireland. I still wouldn't approve of it but at least it would have democratic legitimacy.

These 2 make perfectly good sense to have EU wide rules.

hatrickpatrick · 21-08-2009 09:12PM

^ The vast majority of people I've spoken to would actually much rather have their privacy, to be honest...

K-9 · 21-08-2009 09:20PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

^ The vast majority of people I've spoken to would actually much rather have their privacy, to be honest...

YEP, they would.

Scofflaw · 21-08-2009 09:39PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

Shared competences exist in the current treaties, but there is no list of those competences (even an illustrative one, like in Lisbon).

The typical approach when the treaties do not confer the power, is for the EU to invoke Article 308 EC (flexibility clause). This should only be used for common market rules as per the current treaty, but would be widened by Lisbon. Never-the-less it seems normal practice already to use it for things that have nothing to do with the common market, e.g. freezing terrorist assets (see below).

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:344:0070:0075:EN:PDF

Pretty much wherever you see reference to Article 308 in an EU regulation it means they just made the power up in an EU Council meeting. This happens about 30 times a year.

You really do just pluck these figures out of your bottom, don't you? A quick check at EUR-LEX gives the following for 1973-2009:

Criterion|Numbers|%
All Secondary Legislation|26,523|100%
Mentioning 308|155|0.58%

A total of 4.4 times per year (and the 155 probably contains duplicates). Not "about 30" - you're wrong by an order of magnitude.

factually,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo · 21-08-2009 09:41PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I can think of one straight away off the top of my head:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7985339.stm

Email records.
I don't particularly want any of this information stored.

As the owner of an ISP, I don't particularly want to have to store it. That said, in principle it's basically the same thing as having your phone company store call records, and my biggest issues are not so much with the EU directive as with our government's implementation of it.

Scofflaw · 21-08-2009 10:33PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

^ The vast majority of people I've spoken to would actually much rather have their privacy, to be honest...

I would myself, but then we've had data retention legislation here for most of the decade, and the data retention directives at EU level were an Irish initiative, I'm sorry to say:

After pushing a framework decision on data retention at the EU, Ireland's Government has decided to focus on its national parliament and to pass a law on data retention there. Data retention was snuck into the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act, first introduced in 2002, in the final hours before the Bill became law in February 2005.

The law now calls for three years data retention at all phone companies that provide fixed line and mobile services. The obligation does not extend to more complex information such as location data.

To be honest, I'm glad that it's become an EU Directive, both because the period decided on was shorter than Ireland wanted, and because if Lisbon passes it opens the possibility of challenge under the Charter of Fundamental Rights. There is, regrettably, no right to communications privacy in the Irish Constitution.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MrMicra · 21-08-2009 10:46PM

Yes to a slightly more streamlined decision making process for the European Union!

rumour · 21-08-2009 11:13PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Frankly, I'm trying to cut through the bull, and that includes FutureTaoiseach's wriggling around having different standards for past and future treaties. If the answer to the question I posed to O'Morris is "no", then he can explain why it's not a logical conclusion to the argument he himself has made.

That's yet another verbose and long-winded way of refusing to answer straight questions.

This isn't a philosophy discussion forum. We're discussing politics. If you want to waffle on and on about there being no truly objective truths, go do it somewhere else. If you want to have a factual discussion about the Lisbon treaty, be prepared to answer direct questions when you're asked them.

Yet another demand in your pursuit of cutting trough the bull . I appreciate now that my 'verbose' explanations of establishing the intent and moral background of what we are being asked to vote on are a bit too much like 'waffle' for you. This time I'm going to try and further expand my rational so please bear with me, it might explain why I question in a certain direction.

The demographics of Europe currently make it a soon(20-30yrs) to be failed economic entity. We do not have enough young people to support the old people. Europe is increasingly in debt, we have no natural resources of any significance by that I mean 'demand'. Currently the ECB are printing money at unsustainable levels. This money is facilitating a minor economic recovery which Ireland looks to in hope. However this is a false hope as this money will lead to inflation and raise interest rates in Ireland. Europe is raising money on the bond markets, these need to be watched closely as current thinking is that both the USA and Europe are set to suffer, i.e. the interest on those bonds will rise. That of course would be a double whammy for Ireland. Regardless of what sources I provide to you the capital flight is in progress, hedge funds are moving east to Asia, these are now being followed by institutional funds. Why do you think China has avoided a recession, in addition to not owing money? This is a bleak picture but it is happening, btw this is where I spend my time instead of providing sources for your demands. There is a free and what I consider pretty reliable source of info provided below, others cost money. It is about the future so you can and should get other opinions but it’s not a bad place to start.
http://www.moneyandmarkets.com
http://weiss.streamlogics.com/Aug13-09/
This future requires that we in Europe unite, for many of the reasons that Ireland would vote 'no'. We need an army, we need a common economic policy and most probably common taxation, i.e. if a stability pact says 3% it means 3% with no exceptions. Currently every government in Europe is operating at multiples of that. They are borrowing all over the place. Who is going to pay it back and at what cost? (rhetorical)
Ireland is a typical example of Europe as a whole, funders know this but you will not hear it in the main stream media. I do not know why this is, perhaps vested interests? We cannot afford the social security, services and standard of living; we will have to accept a drop in living standards.
You can see the current debate in Ireland where it is presumed that we don't have to deal with our borrowing problem; we just keep talking, playing politics and borrowing. Can you imagine it in France or Germany? They to have the same problem to face but at the minute along with England and the US they are printing money. The unfolding problems will not become apparent in the real 'economy' for some years and I don't know how soon, five maybe ten years. This again is why I tell you I do not have time to indulge in resurrecting what I have read over many years, I prefer to educate myself in this.
I believe either the treaty of Lisbon or its intentions will succeed by hook or by crook; it is now an imperative regardless of what Ireland do. What concerns me is the intent and moral fibre of those we will entrust to get us through, once Lisbon or its provisions are established it will be necessary for further European consolidations on purely economic grounds.
How these are done will then depend on the executive, legislature and judiciary. What calibre of people these are and their moral beliefs are of immense importance. Change management is a specialisation which any MBA student can give you a tutorial on. You will be aware of what happened in the former USSR and the speed with which it happened.
Other experts can tell you what causes capital flights and induces capital. My own conclusions are that avoiding corruption is a must, which is linked to a firm moral basis. It is therefore (and knowing some of the reasoning behind the current wording) I am extremely interested in the moral backbone of this new institution. Any signs of weakness and the institution will not inspire the required confidence.

The current scenario is that Europe is destined to be much poorer in future, from what I can gather it is in progress, the link I provided above should explain this. Proceeding with Europe seems Irelands only option, but the reasons to vote yes are the reasons that the 'yes' campaign strenuously deny. We will need a European army; we will need common economic policies including taxation. Spending will have to be stringently controlled (deeply unpopular) but what are the options when there is no money (we already owe so much) and the choice is dependency on an equivalent to the IMF that is governed by China, Brazil and India.

In the short term our bed may be feathered with the European Union but in a few years and (indicators are there) we may well be facing the same outcome with less flexibility to get out of it. So arguments like ‘being at the heart of Europe’ etc are just so downright naive I am embarrassed by the people who use them. I hope also I have explained why I do not see the exact wording of the treaty as being currently that relevant (other than the moral foundations) because it is a) necessary and b) a foregone conclusion, the major nations have already agreed it & Ireland is irrelevant.

As too which way I will vote, I still have not decided. In Ireland we have so many problems that require urgent attention Lisbon will not allow us fix them quickly and will reward the people responsible for the mess in the short to medium term, by the time we get sorted out in Ireland there is a possibility Europe will be in trouble all over again and the current bunch of incompetent assholes in Ireland will then proceed to blame external forces for our problems yet again. I personally prefer if I have a problem to deal with it. Secondly, the administration in Brussels is no different than our own government full of entitlement having less connect with the people than exists here. If the economics go wrong taxation will become punitive before these people see reason.
However on a major major pro side Europe are better managed to avoid an IMF controlled by the countries I mentioned above and Ireland isn’t that good at imposing any sort of monetary self discipline. I think Irelands short term fate if we reject Europe is with the IMF. That is enough to seal the deal for me...except if the Brussels bureaucracy gets lost on a power trip rather like our current administration. Economics will dictate what these guys have to do, if they are weak they will get lost in corruption and we’ll have the same problem as if we voted ‘no’ to begin with.

It is a long explanation of my perspective and I have struggled with condensing and summarising it, I apologise right now if it is still ‘waffle’ to you as I will again have failed. Finally I still haven’t replied to your ‘requests’ for citations or references. I will confess that I am seeking information and rather selfishly have no general intention of going out of my way to provide it. If you think this is lying so be it, but I find that strange.

Freeborn John · 21-08-2009 11:27PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

You really do just pluck these figures out of your bottom, don't you? A quick check at EUR-LEX gives the following for 1973-2009:

Criterion|Numbers|%
All Secondary Legislation|26,523|100%
Mentioning 308|155|0.58%
A total of 4.4 times per year (although the 155 probably contains duplicates). Not "about 30" - you're wrong by an order of magnitude.

factually,
Scofflaw

The 'flexibility clause' is Article 308 in the current treaty of Nice. Prior to the Amstersam treaty (May 1999) it was numbered Article 235.

"In the past, the general empowering clause, Article 308 (ex-235), has been used very frequently – more than thirty times per annum. In the words of the Council’s legal services, the clause ‘has been widely interpreted by the Institutions in order to cover all purposes and objects coming within the general framework of the Treaty and not only those listed in Article 3 TEC’ (i.e. the list enumerating the 21 EC activities). Joseph Weiler, a professor of law at Harvard University, has criticised the EU for its ‘profligate legislative practices’ in the usage of the general empowering clause (1999: 319)" R. Vaubel (The European Institutions as an Interest Group)

"Article 308 (formerly 235) - are a paradigm example of an EC Treaty legislative basis which has been controversial because of its capacity to be used in adopting measures which seem to widen the reach of Community law, or at least to permit an apparently indefinite expansion. The problem is that the terms of the article present few if any constraints on action, and they are premised on concepts which are extremely open-ended and in themselves the subject of political contestation" J. Weiler.

Scofflaw · 21-08-2009 11:37PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

The 'flexibility clause' is Article 308 in the current treaty of Nice. Prior to the Amstersam treaty (May 1999) it was numbered Article 235.
"In the past, the general empowering clause, Article 308 (ex-235), has been used very frequently – more than thirty times per annum. In the words of the Council’s legal services, the clause ‘has been widely interpreted by the Institutions in order to cover all purposes and objects coming within the general framework of the Treaty and not only those listed in Article 3 TEC’ (i.e. the list enumerating the 21 EC activities). Joseph Weiler, a professor of law at Harvard University, has criticised the EU for its ‘profligate legislative practices’ in the usage of the general empowering clause (1999: 319)" R. Vaubel (The European Institutions as an Interest Group)

"Article 308 (formerly 235) - are a paradigm example of an EC Treaty legislative basis which has been controversial because of its capacity to be used in adopting measures which seem to widen the reach of Community law, or at least to permit an apparently indefinite expansion. The problem is that the terms of the article present few if any constraints on action, and they are premised on concepts which are extremely open-ended and in themselves the subject of political contestation" J. Weiler.

Good point on the article renumbering - but still we don't get "more than thirty times per annum" - we get about 12 times per annum, and you're still out by a factor of 3. Better than a factor of 10, certainly, but still illustrative of the problems you face arguing from other people's quotes as if they were primary sources - instead of checking the figures yourself. If they're wrong - and they are - than you're wrong, but you don't even know it.

corrected,
Scofflaw

Freeborn John · 22-08-2009 12:27AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Good point on the article renumbering - but still we don't get "more than thirty times per annum" - we get about 12 times per annum, and you're still out by a factor of 3. Better than a factor of 10, certainly, but still illustrative of the problems you face arguing from other people's quotes as if they were primary sources - instead of checking the figures yourself. If they're wrong - and they are - than you're wrong, but you don't even know it.

corrected,
Scofflaw

It doesn't really matter whether they are inventing powers 155/10=15.5 times a year or thirty times a year. The point is that it should not be happening at all. When a respected Jean Monnet professor at Harvard talks of "profligate" practises that "permit an apparently indefinite expansion" in EU law that is superiror to any other for 500 million people then it is a sign of trouble. And when Lisbon widens the scope of this 'flexability clause' to cover the entire scope of EU activities, and when Lisbon itself is being ratified by ignoring referendum results (in France and Netherlands), not holding promised ones (UK, Portugal, etc.), or forcing those who voted NO (Ireland) to vote again, then there is a real problem with the EU.

I just wish that the yes-men on this forum would accept the obvious - that there is an awful democratic deficit - which it is better to lance now with a reconfirmation of the NO vote such that we can get on with sorting it out pronto via a REAL reform treaty. This problem will only get worse if allowed to drift on.

Scofflaw · 22-08-2009 12:52AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

It doesn't really matter whether they are inventing powers 155/10=15.5 times a year or thirty times a year. The point is that it should not be happening at all. When a respected Jean Monnet professor at Harvard talks of "profligate" practises that "permit an apparently indefinite expansion" in EU law that is superiror to any other for 500 million people then it is a sign of trouble. And when Lisbon widens the scope of this 'flexability clause' to cover the entire scope of EU activities, and when Lisbon itself is being ratified by ignoring referendum results (in France and Netherlands), not holding promised ones (UK, Portugal, etc.), or forcing those who voted NO (Ireland) to vote again, then there is a real problem with the EU.

I just wish that the yes-men on this forum would accept the obvious - that there is an awful democratic deficit - which it is better to lance now with a reconfirmation of the NO vote such that we can get on with sorting it out pronto via a REAL reform treaty. This problem will only get worse if allowed to drift on.

The 'democratic deficit' can be solved only by two things - the first is the creation of a fully federal Europe with absolutely equal representation for every European citizen as per the German judgement, which is not what either of us want, the second is the European citizenry getting up off their sofas and actually engaging with what's there, using the powers they've been handed, and making an effort to understand what the EU really does.

A No vote delivers neither of those things, and nor does a Yes. However, at least a Yes offers better powers to control our own governments in Europe, and many more options to challenge EU legislation - a No vote doesn't do those things (and the No side won't be negotiating any EU reforms either, because you can't agree with each other about what they should be). I can't help but feel you might do well to admit that truth: Yes is a better option for remedying the democratic deficit than No.

regards,
Scofflaw

K-9 · 22-08-2009 12:52AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

It doesn't really matter whether they are inventing powers 155/10=15.5 times a year or thirty times a year. The point is that it should not be happening at all. When a respected Jean Monnet professor at Harvard talks of "profligate" practises that "permit an apparently indefinite expansion" in EU law that is superiror to any other for 500 million people then it is a sign of trouble. And when Lisbon widens the scope of this 'flexability clause' to cover the entire scope of EU activities, and when Lisbon itself is being ratified by ignoring referendum results (in France and Netherlands), not holding promised ones (UK, Portugal, etc.), or forcing those who voted NO (Ireland) to vote again, then there is a real problem with the EU.

I just wish that the yes-men on this forum would accept the obvious - that there is an awful democratic deficit - which it is better to lance now with a reconfirmation of the NO vote such that we can get on with sorting it out pronto via a REAL reform treaty. This problem will only get worse if allowed to drift on.

When was it first used?

Scofflaw · 22-08-2009 01:19AM

K-9 wrote: »

When was it first used?

And, we ask ourselves, is it used repeatedly to cover the same ground? To which the answer is apparently yes:

2009/586/EC: Council Decision of 16 February 2009 relating to the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of Korea concerning cooperation on anti-competitive activities

Council Regulation (EC) No 614/2009 of 7 July 2009 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (Codified version)

Decision No 1358/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 amending Decision No 1904/2006/EC establishing for the period 2007 to 2013 the programme Europe for Citizens to promote active European citizenship

Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (Text with EEA relevance)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 429/2008 of 25 April 2008 on detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the preparation and the presentation of applications and the assessment and the authorisation of feed additives (Text with EEA relevance)

2007/810/EC: Council Decision of 19 November 2007 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community and its Member States, of a Protocol to the Agreement on Cooperation and Customs Union between the European Economic Community and the Republic of San Marino, regarding the participation, as contracting parties, of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania, following their accession to the European Union

Council Regulation (EC) No 1248/2007 of 22 October 2007 repealing Regulation (EC) No 2040/2000 on budgetary discipline

Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community Text with EEA relevance

Decision No 1904/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 establishing for the period 2007 to 2013 the programme Europe for Citizens to promote active European citizenship

Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector

Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (Codified version)

Council Regulation (EC) No 625/2009 of 7 July 2009 on common rules for imports from certain third countries (Codified version)

Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 480/2009 of 25 May 2009 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions (Codified version)

Council Regulation (EC) No 431/2009 of 18 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States' balances of payments

Council Regulation (EC) No 260/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the common rules for imports (Codified version)

Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (Text with EEA relevance)

Council Regulation (EC) No 47/2009 of 18 December 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 2183/2004 extending to the non-participating Member States the application of Regulation (EC) No 2182/2004 concerning medals and tokens similar to euro coins

Council Regulation (EC) No 45/2009 of 18 December 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1339/2001 extending the effects of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting to those Member States which have not adopted the euro as their single currency

Council Regulation (EC) No 1360/2008 of 2 December 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States’ balances of payments

Council Directive 2008/114/EC of 8 December 2008 on the identification and designation of European critical infrastructures and the assessment of the need to improve their protection (Text with EEA relevance)

2008/784/EC: Council Decision of 2 October 2008 establishing a separate liability of Montenegro and reducing proportionately the liability of Serbia with regard to the long-term loans granted by the Community to the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro (formerly the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) pursuant to Decisions 2001/549/EC and 2002/882/EC

Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 and amending Regulations (EC) No 552/97, (EC) No 1933/2006 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1100/2006 and (EC) No 964/2007

2008/578/EC: Council Decision of 28 February 2008 relating to the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the Council of Europe on cooperation between the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe

Council Regulation (EC) No 15/2008 of 20 December 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 as regards the entitlement to file an application for a Community plant variety right

2007/860/EC: Council Decision of 10 December 2007 providing Community macro-financial assistance to Lebanon

2007/779/EC,Euratom: Council Decision of 8 November 2007 establishing a Community Civil Protection Mechanism (recast) (Text with EEA relevance)

2007/259/EC: Council Decision of 16 April 2007 providing Community macro-financial assistance to Moldova

Council Decision of 19 April 2007 establishing for the period 2007-2013 the specific programme Fundamental rights and citizenship as part of the General programme Fundamental Rights and Justice

2007/162/EC,Euratom: Council Decision of 5 March 2007 establishing a Civil Protection Financial Instrument (Text with EEA relevance )

A lot of those are extremely similar to each other - covering almost identical ground - which rather suggests that Article 308 is not some kind of one-way gate as Freeborn John appears to think. It appears that invoking 308 provides no permanent increase in the powers of the EU, and that if you want to do something twice, you need to invoke 308 each time. In turn, that means that the repeated use of 308 doesn't represent a constant or progressive increase in the powers of the EU at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob · 22-08-2009 08:49AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

The 'democratic deficit' can be solved only by two things - the first is the creation of a fully federal Europe with absolutely equal representation for every European citizen as per the German judgement, which is not what either of us want, the second is the European citizenry getting up off their sofas and actually engaging with what's there, using the powers they've been handed, and making an effort to understand what the EU really does.

A No vote delivers neither of those things, and nor does a Yes. However, at least a Yes offers better powers to control our own governments in Europe, and many more options to challenge EU legislation - a No vote doesn't do those things (and the No side won't be negotiating any EU reforms either, because you can't agree with each other about what they should be). I can't help but feel you might do well to admit that truth: Yes is a better option for remedying the democratic deficit than No.

regards,
Scofflaw

I have to say thats one of the best reasonings for voting Yes i heard so far, this should be added to that 10 reasons thread, a gem

hatrickpatrick · 22-08-2009 01:59PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

The 'democratic deficit' can be solved only by two things - the first is the creation of a fully federal Europe with absolutely equal representation for every European citizen as per the German judgement, which is not what either of us want, the second is the European citizenry getting up off their sofas and actually engaging with what's there, using the powers they've been handed, and making an effort to understand what the EU really does.

A No vote delivers neither of those things, and nor does a Yes. However, at least a Yes offers better powers to control our own governments in Europe, and many more options to challenge EU legislation - a No vote doesn't do those things (and the No side won't be negotiating any EU reforms either, because you can't agree with each other about what they should be). I can't help but feel you might do well to admit that truth: Yes is a better option for remedying the democratic deficit than No.

regards,
Scofflaw

The third option is to curb the EU a little and stop it transferring any more power away from democratic national parliaments of course. Therefore any treaty which furthers this transfer of power is bad for democracy. What we actually need is a treaty which does something to reverse it a little.

Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

Comments